Campaigners braced for Horkesley Park appeal

10:00am Saturday 2nd March 2013 in News

Campaigners braced for Horkesley Park appeal Campaigners braced for Horkesley Park appeal

CAMPAIGNERS against plans to build a visitor centre in Constable Country say they are ready to fight on after Bunting and Sons vowed to appeal against the decision not to let it build a visitor centre.

 

Opposition groups welcomed the decision to refuse the family-run business permission to build the Stour Valley Visitor Centre in Horkesley Park but have warned their fight is not over yet.

Will Pavry, chairman of the Stour Valley Action Group, said: “It is fantastic news.

“We always knew the proposals had so many problems and councillors, like us, were concerned about the viability issue.

“They did not accept that they should take the risk on this thing without seeing the business case and I think keeping that confidential was a large mistake on the Buntings’ behalf.”

He added: “We must expect the applicant to appeal and we have to hope an inspector will see the application for what it is - a mish mash of ideas, which is not needed in this location.”

Roger Drury, spokesman for the Dedham Vale Society, added: “Councillors realised this thing should be accessible by public transport.

“That could be done if it was built nearer the town but instead they wanted to stick it in the countryside in the middle of the area of outstanding natural beauty.”

He added: “It will certainly go to appeal but I feel if it is to be successful, Bunting and Sons will have to provide the inspector with what has up until now been kept confidential - the business case.”

Colchester councillors voted ten to four to reject the proposals to build on the 117-acre site because of the effect it would have on the area of outstanding natural beauty.

But Stephen Bunting, senior partner at Bunting and Sons, said the company will not give up until the visitor centre is built.

“We are fully committed to the Horkesley Park scheme and the benefits it will deliver and we shall continue with the proposals until they come to fruition.

“Once the official confirmation of the decision is received, we will start moving forward with the appeal process.”

He added: “An appeal will be expensive for both the council and Bunting and Sons and the councillors’ decision to vote contrary to the recommendation and advice from the planning officers will be at Colchester taxpayers’ expense.

“We are confident of success at appeal.”

Comments(44)

totallyfootball says...
10:41am Sat 2 Mar 13

Just goes to show how bull nosed the Buntings are, with greed over common sense and natural beauty.

Report this post »

wellnow says...
11:15am Sat 2 Mar 13

Good for you mr bunting just a shame you have to waste money on more lawyers.still if you win what you get of the council in compensation and costs could be donated to a charity of your choice.

Report this post »

isla33 says...
12:56pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Area of OUTSTANDING Beauty???

Report this post »

Hamiltonandy says...
2:45pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Now the Buntings feel the grounds for winning an appeal will be they can outspend the council on legal support. Why should this rich family be able to trample on democracy? Is it not time for this "vexatious claiment" to be banned from more hopeless planning applications? If only the Buntings would sell the land and go away so we never heard of them again.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
6:30pm Sat 2 Mar 13

- or just stick to their other businesses.

This saga makes "The Planners" series look seriously tame, but what is it achieving other than protracted aggro?

Report this post »

Harrey says...
6:51pm Sat 2 Mar 13

The local people don't want or need it! The Councillors have decided against it, but according to The Bunting family the planning officers concerned are all behind it, do they not represent the interests of the local residents.

Report this post »

sandgronun64 says...
9:40am Sun 3 Mar 13

This appears to be a case that begs a couple of simple questions:

1 If the council officers were biassed in favour of the developers, should they not be the subject of an internal enquiry?

2 If the resubmitted planning application is largely the same as that submitted on this occasion, is there any merit in (the committee) considering it any differently?

The suggestion that money will win over time is simply lazy thought on the part of those that trot out this sad old mantra with all the ease of any tired old cliché.

What is at stake here is the council's own (internal) credibility and ultimately honesty. They must stick to procedures, but must also be prepared to defend that which is actually right, over that which is simply easy.

We pay taxes to employ people that will make the difficult decisions in an impartial way.

Make this a victory, by reviewing procedures and (if found) pruning out any dead/rotten wood before the whole thing becomes irrevocably infected.

The right thing to do will always be best, course of action. Even if that proves unpleasant or expensive, in the long run, it will be better to have done so than to allow corrupted values to pervade the system.

Report this post »

wellnow says...
10:55am Sun 3 Mar 13

Who says the people colchester dont want it I suspect most people, like myself have not got a clue what the scheme might evolve into.the most argument against has been our wonderful countryside destroyed.isn't it mr buntings co untryside as well and dosent he hold title to it?

Report this post »

local gossip says...
12:06pm Sun 3 Mar 13

After his superb performance in the James Corden role in Thursday night's performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall, Vincent Pierce might think about going on stage when he gets sacked from the Council.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:36pm Sun 3 Mar 13

What I still want to know is: why was the application dealt with under a Planning Performance Agreement? These agreements are intended to ease complicated applications through the planning system where there is a common interest and a "shared vision" between the Council and the applicant, but Thursday proved beyond doubt that there isn't one.

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
4:26pm Sun 3 Mar 13

There may or may not be, but when the Inspector from Bristol comes to Colchester and finds in favour of the Buntings (which I suspect he/she will) the officers will be proved right and it should surely be the councillors who voted against who go as they will probably have cost the ratepayers about £100,000 in costs.

Report this post »

Boris says...
5:25pm Sun 3 Mar 13

local gossip wrote:
After his superb performance in the James Corden role in Thursday night's performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall, Vincent Pierce might think about going on stage when he gets sacked from the Council.
Vincent Pearce (correct spelling) will become a planning consultant like all previous heads of planning. They know all the right people and can earn a good living from advising one side or the other.

Report this post »

local gossip says...
5:48pm Sun 3 Mar 13

Boris wrote:
local gossip wrote:
After his superb performance in the James Corden role in Thursday night's performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall, Vincent Pierce might think about going on stage when he gets sacked from the Council.
Vincent Pearce (correct spelling) will become a planning consultant like all previous heads of planning. They know all the right people and can earn a good living from advising one side or the other.
Yeah Boris. Sounded to me like he already is one.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
7:01pm Sun 3 Mar 13

Reginald47 wrote:
There may or may not be, but when the Inspector from Bristol comes to Colchester and finds in favour of the Buntings (which I suspect he/she will) the officers will be proved right and it should surely be the councillors who voted against who go as they will probably have cost the ratepayers about £100,000 in costs.
Interesting remark. I suspect the Planning Inspector will be less easily misled by the arguments of the applicant and his agent.

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
11:43pm Sun 3 Mar 13

Experience in my professional life suggests Simon that if the councillors have gone against the advice of their officers it weighs very heavily with planning Inspectors.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:42am Mon 4 Mar 13

As will misinterpretation of and non-compliance with Planning Policy, I guess.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
10:03am Mon 4 Mar 13

sandgronun64 makes great points.

But how do you get (force?) the council to have an enquiry which is both open and honest?

Do you write to the Chief Exec who himself is complicit in making poor decisions, namely the VAF. Or perhaps the council odbudsman ?

Report this post »

suzywright says...
3:21pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Boris wrote:
local gossip wrote:
After his superb performance in the James Corden role in Thursday night's performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall, Vincent Pierce might think about going on stage when he gets sacked from the Council.
Vincent Pearce (correct spelling) will become a planning consultant like all previous heads of planning. They know all the right people and can earn a good living from advising one side or the other.
Shame he knows sweet FA about planning!!

Report this post »

suzywright says...
3:23pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Now the Buntings feel the grounds for winning an appeal will be they can outspend the council on legal support. Why should this rich family be able to trample on democracy? Is it not time for this "vexatious claiment" to be banned from more hopeless planning applications? If only the Buntings would sell the land and go away so we never heard of them again.
I don't believe they are a rich family. Yes they have lots of land, but if they were that wealthy, why do they always seem to be selling parts of their estate whenever an application is going through. Asset rich - cash poor, I think. I'm sure if they sell up they will have a few quid then!

Report this post »

Jess Jephcott says...
5:20pm Mon 4 Mar 13

I suggest that the opponents take a look at the Colchester Skip Hire experience in Wormingford where the council went against the scheme and the man from Bristol came in, on appeal, and gave the go ahead, thus condemning the people of Eight Ash Green, Fordham Heath, Fordham and Wormingford to HGVs bringing in and taking away waste, using the unclassified road system. If that got the go ahead, against CBC wishes, this one will sail through. Money talks! ....and if I lived in Horkesley, I wouldn't want the riff-raff wandering past my back garden either!

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
5:38pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Thanks Jess. Will check that out as you suggest.

Report this post »

Boris says...
12:12am Tue 5 Mar 13

As for the skip hire business in Wormingford, how well organised waas the opposition? If nobody objects, or only a handful do so, then that means everyone else is content to let it happen. In the case of Horkesley, the opposition is well organised and literally hundreds of us wrote in with objections. You have only to look at the Stour Valley Action Group website to see how well they organised their campaign.
The lesson from all this is that when you don't like a planning application, you have to object to it yourself, and organise lots of other people to do the same. It is extremely hard work and success is not guaranteed, but you give it your best shot, and then you will have nothing to be ashamed of if you fail.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
8:33am Tue 5 Mar 13

I'm not familiar with the Wormingford case, but just because one application gets through on appeal, doesn't mean they all will.
The fact it is in an AONB is always going to make sure this is looked at very closely and although there is the danger an appeal will win, I'm sure SVAG will be fighting it all the way.

Anyone know what businesses the Buntings actually own, I know they have the Vineyard at Boxted, but what else?

Report this post »

local gossip says...
8:49am Tue 5 Mar 13

Another Buntings PR team letter in the East Anglian today (yawn!). Be more convincing if they changed the wording occasionally. Then again, I suppose there's not much they can say in favor.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
9:17am Tue 5 Mar 13

Reginald47 wrote:
Experience in my professional life suggests Simon that if the councillors have gone against the advice of their officers it weighs very heavily with planning Inspectors.
But what if the officers, by their own admission at the very start of the meeting, went against their own local planning framework?

Report this post »

KateCJ says...
1:31pm Tue 5 Mar 13

local gossip wrote:
Another Buntings PR team letter in the East Anglian today (yawn!). Be more convincing if they changed the wording occasionally. Then again, I suppose there's not much they can say in favor.
Spare us!

Will they never learn? Will they never recognise reason and good sense?

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
1:43pm Tue 5 Mar 13

Judging by the arrogance of this comment:

"We are fully committed to the Horkesley Park scheme and the benefits it will deliver and we shall continue with the proposals until they come to fruition."

I would say that they will never learn and have just decided to keep resubmitting proposals, until one gets through. The only thing that will stop them is if they run out of money.
Maybe it is time that there is a boycott on any Buntings related business, just to make sure the money runs out even quicker.

Report this post »

Harrey says...
6:10pm Tue 5 Mar 13

suzywright wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
Now the Buntings feel the grounds for winning an appeal will be they can outspend the council on legal support. Why should this rich family be able to trample on democracy? Is it not time for this "vexatious claiment" to be banned from more hopeless planning applications? If only the Buntings would sell the land and go away so we never heard of them again.
I don't believe they are a rich family. Yes they have lots of land, but if they were that wealthy, why do they always seem to be selling parts of their estate whenever an application is going through. Asset rich - cash poor, I think. I'm sure if they sell up they will have a few quid then!
Don,t really know if this has any bearing but just wondering what the difference in value is of 100 acres of agricultural land against 100 acres of land with planning permission for development of some kind.

Report this post »

local gossip says...
6:18pm Tue 5 Mar 13

Harrey wrote:
suzywright wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
Now the Buntings feel the grounds for winning an appeal will be they can outspend the council on legal support. Why should this rich family be able to trample on democracy? Is it not time for this "vexatious claiment" to be banned from more hopeless planning applications? If only the Buntings would sell the land and go away so we never heard of them again.
I don't believe they are a rich family. Yes they have lots of land, but if they were that wealthy, why do they always seem to be selling parts of their estate whenever an application is going through. Asset rich - cash poor, I think. I'm sure if they sell up they will have a few quid then!
Don,t really know if this has any bearing but just wondering what the difference in value is of 100 acres of agricultural land against 100 acres of land with planning permission for development of some kind.
Quite a lot it would seem from the amount of money they are chucking at trying to hoodwink the planning department. What p.....s me off is the amount of ratepayers money that's been wasted on this over the last 12 years.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
10:56pm Tue 5 Mar 13

James Mercer wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Wormingford case, but just because one application gets through on appeal, doesn't mean they all will.
The fact it is in an AONB is always going to make sure this is looked at very closely and although there is the danger an appeal will win, I'm sure SVAG will be fighting it all the way.

Anyone know what businesses the Buntings actually own, I know they have the Vineyard at Boxted, but what else?
Several, including:

Westwood Park Weddings
Horkesley Park Animal Outreach Ltd
Chantry Art Ltd
and
The Reindeer Hire Company...

but I challenge you to find any accounts filed for any of them at Companies House.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
8:22am Wed 6 Mar 13

Right, I suggest none of us hire any more reindeer! :-)

Thought it was funny at the meeting when it emerged that they were still trying to sell the Chantry last August, despite that being an essential part of the application.

Report this post »

StourValleyLover says...
11:47am Thu 7 Mar 13

Yeh, that was a good joke... also the one about if you went to Colchester Zoo 25 years ago on the premise of seeing Lions and Tigers and all that was on show was rabbits and guinea pigs... summed up the hotch-potch 'offering' of HP really nicely... as one of the Councilors said on the night: "What a mess"... Suffolk Horses, alongside a Chinese Garden (in a Suffolk meadow!) AND a John Constable Gallery with NO proof of any paintings... Quality! And they call themselves 'Businessmen'...

Report this post »

StourValleyLover says...
11:57am Thu 7 Mar 13

Just to add I thought Vince Pearce's "performance" on the night was astounding... seemingly He gave every impression of actually working FOR The Buntings... about as impartial and neutral as a Hangman with his hand poised on the lever... Also what were the Bunting's Planning Consultants doing actually talking to members of the committee in the breaks... what is that smell? Has the Oyster Feast come early this year?

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
12:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Probably the stench of corruption!

Report this post »

Adazibo says...
1:32pm Thu 7 Mar 13

A great victory for democracy. As far as I can see the majority don't want this bizarre development. The most odd fcat was no design for the Chinese Garden? They must appeal as I think they must owe so much money to their backers who I assume are Chinese that contunuing to promise a return on investment is the only thing they can offer. I cannot believe that much of the planning process and consultants fees has been met with Buntings own money.

Report this post »

rowhedge-dave says...
5:32pm Thu 7 Mar 13

suzywright wrote:
Boris wrote:
local gossip wrote:
After his superb performance in the James Corden role in Thursday night's performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall, Vincent Pierce might think about going on stage when he gets sacked from the Council.
Vincent Pearce (correct spelling) will become a planning consultant like all previous heads of planning. They know all the right people and can earn a good living from advising one side or the other.
Shame he knows sweet FA about planning!!
So why would Mr Pearce leave his £75k a year job, which comes complete with 6 weeks annual leave, 6 months sick leave allowance, a car allowance, flexible working hours, and a generous pension to become a planning consultant in private practice?

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
6:37pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Quote: "The continued impartiality and fairness of the Planning Service is critical to public confidence in the transparency and integrety of the planning process"

Report this post »

StourValleyLover says...
6:46pm Thu 7 Mar 13

If the Council 'do the right thing' and have an inquiry... Mr Pearce may very well not be leaving voluntarily and be forced in to Private Practice that way...here's hoping?!
For the same reason as a baby's nappy, these people need to be changed often...
There seems to be a sickness in parts of CBC, who are hell-bent on growing Colchester into a TOWIE slag-town... Don't they realise, more people = more problems... who benefits? Certainly not the present citizens! Maybe the makers of envelopes do...

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
10:55pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Adazibo wrote:
A great victory for democracy. As far as I can see the majority don't want this bizarre development. The most odd fcat was no design for the Chinese Garden? They must appeal as I think they must owe so much money to their backers who I assume are Chinese that contunuing to promise a return on investment is the only thing they can offer. I cannot believe that much of the planning process and consultants fees has been met with Buntings own money.
From 2006: Mr Bunting said that claims alleging a Chinese construction firm had agreed to finance and build the garden were "absolute nonsense". He said "the whole suggestion that the Chinese Government or Mr Hwang is putting money into this is spurious and totally and utterly untrue".

Report this post »

Boris says...
1:10am Fri 8 Mar 13

Simon Taylor wrote:
Adazibo wrote:
A great victory for democracy. As far as I can see the majority don't want this bizarre development. The most odd fcat was no design for the Chinese Garden? They must appeal as I think they must owe so much money to their backers who I assume are Chinese that contunuing to promise a return on investment is the only thing they can offer. I cannot believe that much of the planning process and consultants fees has been met with Buntings own money.
From 2006: Mr Bunting said that claims alleging a Chinese construction firm had agreed to finance and build the garden were "absolute nonsense". He said "the whole suggestion that the Chinese Government or Mr Hwang is putting money into this is spurious and totally and utterly untrue".
Given that Chinese investors are widely believed to be involved, perhaps their idea is to turn "Horkesley Park" into some kind of shopping village such as the one at Bicester where planeloads of wealthy Chinese tourists go to buy designer goods at discounted prices. A kind of upmarket Lakeside.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
9:12am Fri 8 Mar 13

StourValleyLover wrote:
If the Council 'do the right thing' and have an inquiry... Mr Pearce may very well not be leaving voluntarily and be forced in to Private Practice that way...here's hoping?!
For the same reason as a baby's nappy, these people need to be changed often...
There seems to be a sickness in parts of CBC, who are hell-bent on growing Colchester into a TOWIE slag-town... Don't they realise, more people = more problems... who benefits? Certainly not the present citizens! Maybe the makers of envelopes do...
But they won't find anything and even if they did it would be swept under the carpet.

This man is guilty by his actions and yet no proof exists to back up the allegations of his conduct.

£75k a year makes my blood boil for such a useless man.

Report this post »

StourValleyLover says...
12:59pm Mon 11 Mar 13

jim_bo: Don't be so sure - there is proof emerging, Im hearing that the entire meeting was filmed clandestinely-photos of Buntings planning agents 'talking' to the committee have been submitted to Pritchard head of council... letz c if he's got the integrity to do sumthink?!?!

Report this post »

StourValleyLover says...
3:02pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Oooo looky here: http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/9
921344/Councillors-f
or-hire-who-give-fir
ms-planning-advice.h
tml

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
3:19pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Let's hope no-one contacts the Telegraph to ask them to investigate Horkesley Park! :-)

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree